Gar re tt’ s ini ti al peti ti on is dated Oct ober 12, 2009. How ev er , t his peti ti on w as not 1 acc ompani ed by

the re q uired fil ing fee or a mot ion to proceed in form a pa up e ris . In re spons e to thi s C our

t’ s n oti ce of the fail ure to file the fee, Gar re tt filed a s econd , i denti cal peti ti on, d ated Nov ember 4, 2009, that w as acc ompani ed bya moti on to proceed in f o rma pauperis . This C our

t has granted Gar re tt’ s motion and cons tr ues the N ov ember 4 pe ti ti on to be an a mended pet it ion . Further citatio n of

Te x as Rules of

A ppe llate Proced ure w ill be b y referen ce to “Rule 2 __.” NO. 07-09 -033 6-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER18, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E M IC HA EL LO U GAR RE TT, RELATOR

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Rel ator , M ic hael Lou Gar re tt, has fil ed a Peti ti on for W ri t of M andamus req uest ing 1 thi s C our t t o i ss ue a w ri t of manda mus order ing respon dent, the Hon orabl e H al Mi ner , t o deci de two pendi ng moti ons filed by Gar re tt and “ to c ease further obs tr uct io n s o f the peti ti oner ’s att empts to proces s h is l aw sui t . . . . ” W e deny the peti ti on. Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Proc edure 52.3 identi fies the req uirements for a peti ti on 2 for w rit of

man dam us f iled in this Court. Garr e t thas failed to comp ly w ith the se2

re q uirements . Rul e 52. 3 req uires the p erson fili ng a pe ti ti on mus t c erti fy th a t he has rev iew ed th e pe tition a nd co nc lu d e d t h a tev eryfactu al state me nt in the petitio n is supp orted bycomp ete nt evidence in c lu ded in the ap pen dix or record. See Rule 52.3 (j). Gar re tt faile d to make thi s cer ti ficat ion . Rul e 52.3(a ) req uires that a pet it ion musti ncl ude a c omplet e l is t of

al l par ti es and t he names and address es of all co unsel . Gar re tt does not li st the p arti es ag ain st w hom he seek s mandamus reli ef apartfrom t hei r ide nti ficat ion i n the arg ument po rt ion of his peti ti on. Rul e 52.3( b) re q uires that the peti ti on inc lud e a tab le of cont ents w it h referenc es to the page s of the peti ti on and an i ndi cat ion of the s ubj ectmatte r of each issue or p oint raised in the p etition . G arrett’s pet ition include s n o tab le of conte nts. Rul e 52. 3( c) req uires that a peti ti on inc lud e an i ndex of author it ies i n w hic h al l author it ies ci ted i n the petiti on are arrang ed al phabeti cal ly and the p ag e( s) upon w hic h the auth or it ies are c it e d i s i ndi cat ed. Gar re tt’ s p eti ti on i ncl udes no i ndex of author it ies . Rul e 52. 3( d) re q uires a s tatementof the c ase. G ar re tt’ s p etiti o n d o e s n o t c ontai n a s tatementof the cas e and does not i denti fy the n ature of the under ly ing proceed ing . Rul e 52.3(e ) re q uires that the p eti ti on must state the basi s of the cour t’ s jur is dicti on. Gar re tt’ s peti ti on does not inc lud e a s tatementof the b a sis o f this C our t’ s j ur is dicti on. Rul e 52. 3( f) req uires the pet ition to include a concise sta tem entof all issues or points pre sent ed for relief . Garrett’s pet ition includ es no such statem ent . Each of the se item s are required i n a pet ition fo r w rit of ma n d a m u s a n d, as Gar re tt faile d to inc lud e the m in hi s p eti ti on, w e w il l not g ra nt t he relief thathe requests. Howe ve r, ev en if

Garrett ha d com plied wi th th e requireme nts of Rule 52.3 , his peti ti on fail s t o es tabl is h hi s e nti tl ement t o mandamus reli ef. A tr ial courthas a mi nis ter ial3

duty to cons ide r and r ule on mot ions proper ly fil ed and pendi ng before the c our t and mandamus mayi ss ue to co mpel the j udg e to act . Safety -K lee n C or p. v. Garci a, 94 5 S . W . 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (T e x. A p p . – S a n A n t o n io 1 9 9 7 , o ri g. p ro c e e d in g) (c it in g O ’D o n n il e y v. Gol den, 860 S. W .2d 2 67, 269- 70 (Tex .App. –Ty ler 1993, or ig . proceed ing )) . How ev er , t he tr ial co urt i s a fforded a re asona ble ti me i n w hic h to per form this m ini ste ri al duty . Bar nes v . St at e, 832 S.W .2 d 42 4, 426 (Te x .A pp .– H ou s to n [1 Di s t. ] 19 92 , or i g . proc ee di ng ) . To st est abl is h ent it lementto mandamus re li ef for a tr ial cour t’ s failu re to cons ide r and ru le on a motion, the rel ator

m ustestabl is h that the tri al cour t had a leg al duty

to per form a no ndis creti onar

y act, w as ask ed to per form the act , and fa il ed or refused to do s o w it hin a re a so n a b le tim e . In re Ch a vez, 6 2 S. W .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 8 ( T e x.A p p .–Am a rill o 20 0 1 , o rig. proceed ing ). A cour

t i s n o t re qui re d to cons ide r a moti on notca ll ed to i ts atten ti on. Metzg er v . Seb ek, 89 2 S.W .2d 20, 49 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1 Dist.] 1994 , w rit denied ). st Gar re tt fails to est abl is h tha t hi s mot ion s were broug ht t o the att enti on of the tr ial cour t. Ac cordin g to Gar re tt’ s p e ti ti o n , the Di str ict C ler k fil ed hi s “ Mo ti on R eq uest ing an Order Com pelling Discov eryto Ena ble S e rvi c e o f Process” on Jun e 26 , 200 9, an d his Motion to Recuse Judge Miner on July 16, 200 9 . T he co v er letters for each of these moti ons re q uestthe Di str ict Cl er k to “fil e the se ins tr uments among the other papers” of the cause “an d bring sam e to the a tten tion of t he Cou rt Coordina tor.” Clearly , even if Ga rrett’s re q uest s were full y

compli ed w it h, t here i s n o ev ide nce that the mot ion w as ev er broug ht to th e att ent ion of

the trial court. Fi ling a mo tion w ith the district clerk doe s not est ablish th a t t h e m o ti o n wa s b ro u ghtt o t h e a tt e n ti o n o f th e tri a l co u rtbe ca u se th e cle rk' s kn o wled ge of the m otion is not impu ted to the trial court. In re Chavez , 62 S. W .3d at 228 . Becau seGarrett con ten ds tha t the Distri ct Clerk’s return of an unsigned order relating to his 3 mo tion to comp el discovery ev ide n c e s a ref usal of the trial court to act. At be st, such act ion ca n lead t o an inference that the t ri al cour t refused to act. H ow ev er , w it hout any ev ide nce that the mot ion w as broug ht t o the att enti on of th e tr ial co urt, the retur n of the unsi g ned order

fall s far sh ort of ev ide nci ng an o v ert refusal to act.

4 Gar re tt’ s p eti ti on fail s t o demons trate t hat h is moti on has been act ual ly broug ht t o the tr ial cour t’ s a ttent ion or

presented f o r a r uli ng , w e mustdeny Gar re tt’ s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus. See In re Pose y , No. 07- 03- 0518- CV , 2004 Tex .App. LEX IS 695, at * 2 -* 3 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2004 , orig. proce edin g) . Addi ti onal ly , w hil e a t ri al cour t has a mini ste ri al duty to cons ide r and r ule on mot ion s prop erly f iled an d pe ndin g before the court, th e cou rt is af forde d a reaso nab le time in w hich to pe rform its m inisterial dut y . Safety-Kleen Cor p., 9 45 S. W .2d at 269 . W het her a re asona ble ti me has l apsed depends on the facts of each cas e. Bar nes, 832 S.W .2d a t 426. F act ors rele v ant i n det er mini ng w hether a reas o n a b le time has l apsed i ncl ude w hether the tr ial co urt had actual know led g e of the moti on, i ts ov ert refusal to act, the s tate of its doc ket , and othe r jud ic ial and admini strati v e dut ies w hic h mustbe a ddress ed first. In re V i l l a r re a l , 9 6 S . W . 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 ( Te x . A p p . –A ma r i l l o 2 0 0 3 , o r i g . p ro c e e din g ). As add ressed abo v e, no thing in the record before us establishe s thatGarrett’s mo tions were ev er broug ht t o the att enti on of the tr ial co urt. F urther , no ov ert refusal to act i s s how n, 3 no ev ide nce of the s tate of t he tr ial cour t’ s dock et is prov ide d, and there i s n o ev ide nce of w hether the tr ial co urt mus t afford ot her j udi ci al or

admi n istrati v e dut ies pr ior ity . It is the burd en o f

the pa rty

requesting relief to provi de a record suf f icient to es t a b li s h his enti tl ement t o mandamus reli ef. See W alk er v. Packer , 827 S.W .2d 833, 837 ( Tex . 199 2)5

(o rig. pro ce e d in g); I n re B a te s, 65 S. W .3 d 13 3 , 1 3 5 (T e x.A p p .–Am a r i l l o 2 0 0 1 , o rig. proceed ing ). Fi nal ly , G ar re tt' s mot ion s were fil ed on June 26, 2 009, and J uly 16, 2009. Thus, the mo tions h ave been pen din g before the trial court for four an d ha lf and four m ont hs, respe ctiv ely. Ordinarily , such a d elay w ill notbe con sidered unre a s o n a b le . See In re Gon z ale s , N o. 0 7- 06 - 03 24 - C V, 2 00 6 Tex .A pp . LE X IS 8 05 7, a t * 3, ( Tex .A pp .– Am ar i l lo Sept. 6, 2006, or ig . proceed ing ) (me m o . o p .) ( three month s p endency of moti on not unre ason able delay). For the foreg oin g reason s, Gar re tt’ s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice